Philosophy OF Death

[hoope]

What is your philosophy about death ?

Does knowing that we will all die .. make it any easy ?

Why is it harder on those who are alive , more painful to us then those who died? They gone .. simply but we suffer their lose.
Death comes all at sudden and takes people away, It's everyone's destiny yea .. but the fact is it not yet accepted by many of us.

[Ingestion]

Death is hard on the living because its the living that must live with death. However, the meaning of death vary's greatly from individual to individual and from culture to culture. While we all have our beliefs regarding death we do not know what death brings. Perhaps we carry our souls with us. Perhaps we don't. However, in my opinion the best way to deal with death is to honour the lives of those who have passed on. Pass on the messages they carried, and nurture their memories.

I agree that death is not accepted by many of us. I think it is because we are so often taught to avoid it or simply not taught about it at all. Human seem to have a natural fear to things they do not understand and death is one thing we do not understand that we can't also conquer.

[Maximilianus]

Knowing that death is unavoidable doesn't make anything easy and it's not supposed to. We get used to having certain people around us, one day they are gone forever, and we have to slowly adapt to their absence. The passing of time is the only means to help you get used to the new situation. Eventually, you will have to let them go and continue with your life without them and it's not supposed to be easy. It's the way life and death work together, the eternal inevitable cycle between the two, and there's not much that we can do about it. I suggest not to swallow the pain and let it out in some form. All need to cry mustn't be contained.

[mal4mac]

Death is nothing to us, because when we are dead we do not feel, or if there is an afterlife we know nothing about it; and it's foolish to worry about something that can never be known about.

(Actually I don't think there will be any afterlife for anything recognisable as "me"...)

So my position about death is basically that of Epicurus... look it up read about it, it's the cure for the fear of death.
Proof? ... I don't fear death.

Because my own death is nothing to me, nothing to fear, I don't fear or get upset at the death of others.

To say "the living must live with death" is an obvious fallacy, typical of the fallacies that go around and that lead to us to worry about death - they make us think it is something in life, when (by definition!) it isn't.

To not accept the fact of death is an act of idiocy, a denial of the obvious. So accept it!

Get used to the fact that anyone around you can die at any time, then you will have no need to adapt to their absence. See that having certain people around is not one of life's essentials.... only food and shelter is really essential. Don't let anything disturb your tranquility, especially the presence or non-presence of such wayward things as other human beings.

Another myth: "Eventually, you will have to let them go and continue with your life without them and it's not supposed to be easy." You only think it's hard because you've been watching too many sentimental Hollywood movies. Of course it's not meant to be hard! Who set it to be hard? It's not meant to be anything... so choose it to be easy. Read some real philosophy... start with Seneca's letters.

[YesNo]

Based on near and shared death experiences, I don't think it is possible for us to completely die even though our bodies die. Based on accounts of reincarnation, I don't think this is the only time we have been associated with a body. I don't know much more about it than that, however, I draw the following conclusions:

1) Suicide is not a solution to most problems it is used to solve since there is no guarantee it will completely work.
2) I am not convinced that any attempts to meditate one's way into nirvana so that one does not get reincarnated again work any more than traditional suicide.
3) Since we are alive, assuming life is good and worth paying attention to should be the default position.

[hoope]

Death is hard on the living because its the living that must live with death. However, the meaning of death vary's greatly from individual to individual and from culture to culture. While we all have our beliefs regarding death we do not know what death brings. Perhaps we carry our souls with us. Perhaps we don't. However, in my opinion the best way to deal with death is to honour the lives of those who have passed on. Pass on the messages they carried, and nurture their memories.

I agree that death is not accepted by many of us. I think it is because we are so often taught to avoid it or simply not taught about it at all. Human seem to have a natural fear to things they do not understand and death is one thing we do not understand that we can't also conquer.

I agree that honoring the death .. can make us feel better about it & accept ...but as you said yet its not accepted to many of us !


Knowing that death is unavoidable doesn't make anything easy and it's not supposed to. We get used to having certain people around us, one day they are gone forever, and we have to slowly adapt to their absence. The passing of time is the only means to help you get used to the new situation. Eventually, you will have to let them go and continue with your life without them and it's not supposed to be easy. It's the way life and death work together, the eternal inevitable cycle between the two, and there's not much that we can do about it. I suggest not to swallow the pain and let it out in some form. All need to cry mustn't be contained.

Max! We try to get busy in life in order to forget.. but everything around us reminds of those whom we lost ...especially when good occasions and celebrations get close.. you just wonder " Where are they ?"
I guess life goes on ... and everyone is different in dealing with the loss.. Some are stronger and some good at just ignoring & moving on.. People varies . And this is one advantage I can say for those who can easily forget & go on...


Death is nothing to us, because when we are dead we do not feel, or if there is an afterlife we know nothing about it; and it's foolish to worry about something that can never be known about.

(Actually I don't think there will be any afterlife for anything recognisable as "me"...)

So my position about death is basically that of Epicurus... look it up read about it, it's the cure for the fear of death.
Proof? ... I don't fear death.

Because my own death is nothing to me, nothing to fear, I don't fear or get upset at the death of others.

To say "the living must live with death" is an obvious fallacy, typical of the fallacies that go around and that lead to us to worry about death - they make us think it is something in life, when (by definition!) it isn't.

To not accept the fact of death is an act of idiocy, a denial of the obvious. So accept it!

Get used to the fact that anyone around you can die at any time, then you will have no need to adapt to their absence. See that having certain people around is not one of life's essentials.... only food and shelter is really essential. Don't let anything disturb your tranquility, especially the presence or non-presence of such wayward things as other human beings.

Another myth: "Eventually, you will have to let them go and continue with your life without them and it's not supposed to be easy." You only think it's hard because you've been watching too many sentimental Hollywood movies. Of course it's not meant to be hard! Who set it to be hard? It's not meant to be anything... so choose it to be easy. Read some real philosophy... start with Seneca's letters.

Well.. its good to not fear death.
But the question that everyone asks .. is What happens when I leave ?
For people like me who believes in a life after death.. it matters.. It doesn't mean I fear death... but I need to be ready for that moment
coz simply I don't think we live aimlessly .

And yes .. I do accept the fact of death.. But the fact of not seeing that person again .. is a bit hard for all of us.

Yes we eventually will die .. I agree !



Based on near and shared death experiences, I don't think it is possible for us to completely die even though our bodies die. Based on accounts of reincarnation, I don't think this is the only time we have been associated with a body. I don't know much more about it than that, however, I draw the following conclusions:

1) Suicide is not a solution to most problems it is used to solve since there is no guarantee it will completely work.
2) I am not convinced that any attempts to meditate one's way into nirvana so that one does not get reincarnated again work any more than traditional suicide.
3) Since we are alive, assuming life is good and worth paying attention to should be the default position.

Strange !
.. We die.. but we get into life again ... a life after life.
but the life hearafter is lasting one.. where we get to either go heaven or hell.
Its said that when the people are in grave .. they can still hear us & fell us when we visit them at the graveyard.

[FROADS]

Death is nothing to us, because when we are dead we do not feel, or if there is an afterlife we know nothing about it; and it's foolish to worry about something that can never be known about...


True, a person already dead doesn't feel anything. But a person in the process of getting killed or knows that death is surely near would most likely feel tremendous, either physical or mental, pain. Say a guy gets shot in the head, that bullet would inflict much pain if for a slight second, in effect, that person did feel his life culminating. Other examples would vary in terms of dying in pain...drowning, starvation, aids etc.

When you're alive and healthy it's easier to say that you don't fear death, but you disregard the negative factors that come with it (loss of life and everything with it: relatives, memories, sensations).

I think there's a duality towards death. People accept it in a way because it's part of the life process, but accepting it when you're in that fatal state is another story.

[cafolini]

True, a person already dead doesn't feel anything. But a person in the process of getting killed or knows that death is surely near would most likely feel tremendous, either physical or mental, pain. Say a guy gets shot in the head, that bullet would inflict much pain if for a slight second, in effect, that person did feel his life culminating. Other examples would vary in terms of dying in pain...drowning, starvation, aids etc.

When you're alive and healthy it's easier to say that you don't fear death, but you disregard the negative factors that come with it (loss of life and everything with it: relatives, memories, sensations).

I think there's a duality towards death. People accept it in a way because it's part of the life process, but accepting it when you're in that fatal state is another story.

I don't think you have had much experience with the elderly dying. They adapt very well and they might require pain killers depending on the affliction. But they die in acceptance, serene, and waiting for it. Of course there are a few mentally ill that raise a lot of hell. But they are very few.

[mal4mac]

True, a person already dead doesn't feel anything. But a person in the process of getting killed or knows that death is surely near would most likely feel tremendous, either physical or mental, pain.

Why would this person feel severe mental pain? If he has accepted Epicurus than he has nothing to fear, so nothing to cause mental pain.

If you have experienced any physical pain (headache, toothache...) then wasn't it bearable? Nothing really to fear. Epicurus died from kidney stones, one of the most painful deaths there is, by most accounts, yet he remained happy throughout the dying process.



When you're alive and healthy it's easier to say that you don't fear death, but you disregard the negative factors that come with it (loss of life and everything with it: relatives, memories, sensations).


After death you aren't there, so how can you lose anything? Before death you have all these things. So you don't lose anything, full stop.

[mal4mac]

Some philosophical literature on death:

Plato - "Dialogues" - worth reading a complete collection, but the first few (Apology, Crito, Phaedo) are especially good on this particular topic as Socrates is actually facing death in them.

Seneca - "Letters" - Epicurus plays a starring role

Epicurus - complete works (unfortunately just a hundred pages or so, the Christians burned the rest because they couldn't stand the competition :))

Hamlet - Shakespeare is very good on this topic, eg:

"There’s a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ’tis not to come. If it be not to come, it will be now. If it be not now, yet it will come—the readiness is all. Since no man of aught he leaves knows, what is ’t to leave betimes? Let be."

Montaigne - Essays

[Paulclem]

Why would this person feel severe mental pain? If he has accepted Epicurus than he has nothing to fear, so nothing to cause mental pain.

If you have experienced any physical pain (headache, toothache...) then wasn't it bearable? Nothing really to fear. Epicurus died from kidney stones, one of the most painful deaths there is, by most accounts, yet he remained happy throughout the dying process.



After death you aren't there, so how can you lose anything? Before death you have all these things. So you don't lose anything, full stop.

Rationalising it, unfortunately, does not eliminate either mental of physical pain unless one is trained to do this. I wonder if you've met anyone with kidney stones or gallstones? Perhaps telling them would take away the pain.

[mal4mac]

Rationalising it, unfortunately, does not eliminate either mental of physical pain unless one is trained to do this. I wonder if you've met anyone with kidney stones or gallstones? Perhaps telling them would take away the pain.

I don't think anyone is arguing that physical pain can be eliminated, but I think a philosophical approach might be a good way of "dealing with it". I think it's helped me with some minor pains, I await the bigger test though! The ancients all say that extensive training is required, you can't just read the Wikipedia page on Seneca, and that's job done. Montaigne also suffered from kidney stones, and gives an extensive account of his approach to coping with them:

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/montaigne/montaigne-essays-8.html

A more recent famous philosopher who really got into stoicism and "the philosophy of death", near his untimely and painful end, was Michael Foucault, his "Hermeneutics of the Subject" is a good read.

[FROADS]

I think you're depicting death as this poetic part of nature that harmonizes with the cycle of life and that we as humans should accept it quietly. The thing about it is that most people don't live up to 90 and die in their sleep silently, most times death comes in violently and unexpected. Can you be prepared for something that's fortuitous? Nope. And if you happen to survive a brush with death, let me tell u, it's nothing poetic. It's traumatizing, at times painful if you're injured, but it does make you cherish life more. I know by experience when I was involved in a car accident a couple of years ago...I feared death then and I fear death now. That's why I minimize the risks in order to prolong my life. But when my times comes, it comes. And i can't do nothing about it. So in a way, like i said, I accept it as a part of life but I still fear it because it might take me while I'm still young, feel me.

[poetmin]

Death is final result in which those who are evaluated how much she or he weight their live in the way value and not value.

[cacian]

death is part of the deal ie without it there is no life.
why worry death when life is more pressing because whilst death does not dwell everything else does.

[Nick Capozzoli]

I don't think you have had much experience with the elderly dying. They adapt very well and they might require pain killers depending on the affliction. But they die in acceptance, serene, and waiting for it. Of course there are a few mentally ill that raise a lot of hell. But they are very few.

Some do and some don't, and I say that based on having been around dying folks, both young and old. You are right about the need to alleviate pain, which is one aspect of dying that we have the ability to do something about. We do have potent drugs to alleviate pain (and anxiety), and we should offer these to the dying, along with whatever other forms of comfort we can provide. That's what Hospice Medicine and Palliative Care is all about.

Death is inevitable. We all die sooner or later. And death, for a living body, is final, which is to say that it is the end of one's life as a living organism. That is unless you believe in the idea of a Soul that has some sort of existence independent of the body.

Given the inevitability and finality of death, dying folks will approach death, and "accept" it differently. Kubler-Ross described a series of stages in the psychological "response" to news of one's impending death, beginning with anger and ending with acceptance. It's a neat intellectual construct that is generally accepted as true. For all I know, it may be an accurate "ideal" description of how the mind deals with impending death. I can tell you that it doesn't always follow the K-R schema. Some folks do get to the final stage of acceptance, but others do not. Many "do not go gentle into that Good Night" but continue to rage against the dying of the light...

BTW, Dylan Thomas's poem says little about his father's attitude towards death, and says a lot about the poet's own feelings about his father's death.

[mal4mac]

Given the inevitability and finality of death, dying folks will approach death, and "accept" it differently. Kubler-Ross described a series of stages in the psychological "response" to news of one's impending death, beginning with anger and ending with acceptance. It's a neat intellectual construct that is generally accepted as true. For all I know, it may be an accurate "ideal" description of how the mind deals with impending death. I can tell you that it doesn't always follow the K-R schema. Some folks do get to the final stage of acceptance, but others do not. Many "do not go gentle into that Good Night" but continue to rage against the dying of the light...

Kubler-Ross may be describing stages that some ordinary people follow, but it doesn't seem at all "neat" to me, and it isn't generally accepted as true.

You seem to be implying that people should just not bother thinking about death, and just react to it when it comes. So if they get angry, depressed, get drunk and and go around shouting "Wo is me! Wo is me!", and never accept it, then that's perfectly alright. Personally, I'd rather avoid such dramatics & mental torment, if possible.

The great philosophers (Socrates, Seneca, Montaigne...) began & finished with total acceptance, and didn't get angry (if accounts of their deaths are to be believed, and there is no reason to doubt them.) They also left a legacy of understanding, suggesting that we can face death in the same way, if we read them properly and apply their techniques. Dylan Thomas was an intemperate drunk who had a way with words; Plato would have exiled him, with good reason... read "the Republic" to see his reasons...

[Delta40]

I look forward to turning back into stardust. I just hope the experience is not one of terror.

[mal4mac]

I look forward to turning back into stardust...

Sorry, stardust isn't a given. It might be worm s**t for a few billion years, then swallowed by a black hole... :)

[Delta40]

Sorry, stardust isn't a given. It might be worm s**t for a few billion years, then swallowed by a black hole... :)

Don't forget the maggots! Whatever the process I won't care in death but while I'm living It's exciting. Somebody might inhale my atoms one day.

[qimissung]

For my part, if someone's going to inhale me I hope it's the big Lebowski as I plan to be cremated so as to turn into worms*** all the faster, my dear.

[Paulclem]

Some do and some don't, and I say that based on having been around dying folks, both young and old. You are right about the need to alleviate pain, which is one aspect of dying that we have the ability to do something about. We do have potent drugs to alleviate pain (and anxiety), and we should offer these to the dying, along with whatever other forms of comfort we can provide. That's what Hospice Medicine and Palliative Care is all about.

Death is inevitable. We all die sooner or later. And death, for a living body, is final, which is to say that it is the end of one's life as a living organism. That is unless you believe in the idea of a Soul that has some sort of existence independent of the body.

Given the inevitability and finality of death, dying folks will approach death, and "accept" it differently. Kubler-Ross described a series of stages in the psychological "response" to news of one's impending death, beginning with anger and ending with acceptance. It's a neat intellectual construct that is generally accepted as true. For all I know, it may be an accurate "ideal" description of how the mind deals with impending death. I can tell you that it doesn't always follow the K-R schema. Some folks do get to the final stage of acceptance, but others do not. Many "do not go gentle into that Good Night" but continue to rage against the dying of the light...

BTW, Dylan Thomas's poem says little about his father's attitude towards death, and says a lot about the poet's own feelings about his father's death.

What you're saying seems to resonate with my own small experience of people dying, but more significantly my wife's - who worked as a nurse for some years. She reported some reaching a serene acceptance, but many did not. As you say pain relief helps.

Interestingly, my wife dislikes Dylan Thomas' poem. She sees it as very negative - what is the point of raging against the inevitable? I agree with her, and agree that it says more about Thomas.

[mal4mac]

What you're saying seems to resonate with my own small experience of people dying, but more significantly my wife's - who worked as a nurse for some years. She reported some reaching a serene acceptance, but many did not. As you say pain relief helps.

How did the ones reaching a serene acceptance achieve that?

I'm certainly not arguing against pain relief, but surely "mental attitude" and "mental training" is also important? I've listed some of the great Western philosophers & writers who had something to say on this matter. Are they all just blowing hot air? Do we all just forget philosophy, and scream in mental agony when the time comes? Unless we happen to be born serene...

[Paulclem]

How did the ones reaching a serene acceptance achieve that?

I'm certainly not arguing against pain relief, but surely "mental attitude" and "mental training" is also important? I've listed some of the great Western philosophers & writers who had something to say on this matter. Are they all just blowing hot air? Do we all just forget philosophy, and scream in mental agony when the time comes? Unless we happen to be born serene...

I asked my wife and she indicated that one notably calm lady - who was quite young in her 50s and with a young adopted child and so with lots of reasons to feel aggrieved, angry, worried etc - was a calm person anyway. It seems to imply that already being calm helps. This is the message from the Dharma too - death takes preparation, and that may be why there is such a variety of responses - according to my wife - to impending death.

You talk about forgetting philosophy, but what philosophies do people aspire to? I suspect that if you asked ordinary people, their philosophy would be more concerned with living life to the full, doing good etc etc - all focused upon life. You can hear it in the eulogies of people when tragedies happen - they invariably say they were full of life or lived life to the full etc etc, as if their life before transcends death.

One message is clear - that pain relief is essential to calming most people before death. Mental attitude and training would be important to those who do it, but who does? I don't see any philosophy programmes instructing study groups on how to deal with death. I am sceptical that just reading about it can have any effect when the crisis occurs.

Do we all just forget philosophy, and scream in mental agony when the time comes? Unless we happen to be born serene.

I'm not sure what planet you're talking from here. That's why there's pain relief, but beyond that, what preparation are you expecting people to have done? There are Buddhist practices as we know, but very few people practice. Most people are unprepared for death mentally, and certainly will not appreciate the pain that is involved as the body begins to decline.

[mal4mac]

I asked my wife and she indicated that one notably calm lady - who was quite young in her 50s and with a young adopted child and so with lots of reasons to feel aggrieved, angry, worried etc - was a calm person anyway. It seems to imply that already being calm helps.


But how did she get to be calm? An unfair question really, not many modern Western philosophers seem to ask these questions, so why should hard-pressed nurses?!



You talk about forgetting philosophy, but what philosophies do people aspire to?


The modern philosophers have mostly deserted the field, so there's not much for people to aspire to. Maybe why New Age religions are doing so well... There are some rare exceptions, Pierre Hadot, for instance.



I suspect that if you asked ordinary people, their philosophy would be more concerned with living life to the full, doing good etc etc - all focused upon life. You can hear it in the eulogies of people when tragedies happen - they invariably say they were full of life or lived life to the full etc etc, as if their life before transcends death.


This seems a major error; Plato, Seneca et. al. all stress the importance of contemplating death in order to have a full life!



One message is clear - that pain relief is essential to calming most people before death. Mental attitude and training would be important to those who do it, but who does? I don't see any philosophy programmes instructing study groups on how to deal with death. I am sceptical that just reading about it can have any effect when the crisis occurs.


Pierre Hadot stresses the importance of not "just reading" philosophy, but actually "living it" as a spiritual exercise, and as the ancient philosophers recommended. Having just read Seneca for the nth time, I know he certainly recommends doing more than just reading - among other things, he recommends digesting a few major authors, taking notes, putting things in your own words, until you have absorbed the message.



Do we all just forget philosophy, and scream in mental agony when the time comes? Unless we happen to be born serene.

I'm not sure what planet you're talking from here. That's why there's pain relief, but beyond that, what preparation are you expecting people to have done? There are Buddhist practices as we know, but very few people practice. Most people are unprepared for death mentally, and certainly will not appreciate the pain that is involved as the body begins to decline.

I'm assuming the pain relief can solve physical pain, but mental pain? I'm really thinking about Dylan Thomas here... he's not in physical pain, he's raging is some kind of self induced mental torment. There are Buddhist practices, but there are also Western practices, which might go down easier with a Western audience.

[Paulclem]

Pierre Hadot stresses the importance of not "just reading" philosophy, but actually "living it" as a spiritual exercise, and as the ancient philosophers recommended. Having just read Seneca for the nth time, I know he certainly recommends doing more than just reading - among other things, he recommends digesting a few major authors, taking notes, putting things in your own words, until you have absorbed the message.



I'm assuming the pain relief can solve physical pain, but mental pain? I'm really thinking about Dylan Thomas here... he's not in physical pain, he's raging is some kind of self induced mental torment. There are Buddhist practices, but there are also Western practices, which might go down easier with a Western audience.

But how did she get to be calm? An unfair question really, not many modern Western philosophers seem to ask these questions, so why should hard-pressed nurses?!

From what my wife says, she was calm from the beginning - calmness had become her way? More than that it is impossible to say. You do meet the occasional calm person.

The modern philosophers have mostly deserted the field, so there's not much for people to aspire to. Maybe why New Age religions are doing so well... There are some rare exceptions, Pierre Hadot, for instance.

Yes - don't hear much about them. When we ran classes, we came into contact with New Age ideas and people. I wasn't very impressed to be honest. They seemed to be an amalgam of not very useful ideas.

This seems a major error; Plato, Seneca et. al. all stress the importance of contemplating death in order to have a full life!

I agree. I think in the west it is a cultural failing. Death is neatly packaged up now with minimal contact with the reality of it. By focusing upon the trimmings - casket, flowers, funeral etc - I think it takes the human element away - which doesn't matter if you have awareness/ practice, but is not useful if you don't.

Pierre Hadot stresses the importance of not "just reading" philosophy, but actually "living it" as a spiritual exercise, and as the ancient philosophers recommended. Having just read Seneca for the nth time, I know he certainly recommends doing more than just reading - among other things, he recommends digesting a few major authors, taking notes, putting things in your own words, until you have absorbed the message.

Again I agree. perhaps the type of philosophy doesn't matter - in terms of coping with the death process - but I don't know anyone except Buddhists who have any kind of process of dealing with it before it is needed.


I'm assuming the pain relief can solve physical pain, but mental pain? I'm really thinking about Dylan Thomas here... he's not in physical pain, he's raging is some kind of self induced mental torment. There are Buddhist practices, but there are also Western practices, which might go down easier with a Western audience

Yes - not helped by physical pain, but a philosophy, awareness, a contemplation of death needs to have been done in order to be able to cope at all.

Interestingly - which I forgot to include in my last post - my wife tells me that often the dying person becomes very tired. Their breathing becomes weaker, and this may contribute to the person being calmer. This seems to make sense considering that breath control and an easing of the gas does calm down the mind. My Dad was like this. He moved from an extreme fear to a more calm demeanour - but this went along with the gradual deterioration of his heart etc, and the pain relief.

[Nick Capozzoli]

I agree. I think in the west it is a cultural failing. Death is neatly packaged up now with minimal contact with the reality of it. By focusing upon the trimmings - casket, flowers, funeral etc - I think it takes the human element away - which doesn't matter if you have awareness/ practice, but is not useful if you don't.
I'm assuming the pain relief can solve physical pain, but mental pain? I'm really thinking about Dylan Thomas here... he's not in physical pain, he's raging is some kind of self induced mental torment. There are Buddhist practices, but there are also Western practices, which might go down easier with a Western audience

Yes - not helped by physical pain, but a philosophy, awareness, a contemplation of death needs to have been done in order to be able to cope at all.

Interestingly - which I forgot to include in my last post - my wife tells me that often the dying person becomes very tired. Their breathing becomes weaker, and this may contribute to the person being calmer. This seems to make sense considering that breath control and an easing of the gas does calm down the mind. My Dad was like this. He moved from an extreme fear to a more calm demeanour - but this went along with the gradual deterioration of his heart etc, and the pain relief.

These are good points, Paulclem. Death is neatly packaged up now with minimal contact with the reality of it. Quite true. It is common today for folks to die in hospitals, hospices, and nursing homes, when death is expected (i.e. when one is terminally ill). In previous times, people usually died at home, in their own beds, hopefully surrounded by family and friends. Then there were wakes, which also took place at home in the parlor. These home wakes have been replaced by "viewings" at a"Funeral Home" or "Funeral Parlor," terms I assume were coined for that very reason. Death has been medicalized, something to be dealt with by medical personnel in a medical environment. Then when the "patient" dies there, his body is given over to other specialists to be further processed and put on view. The result of all this is that very few folks in the US today who do not work in the medical professions (including EMS personnel), in law enforcement, or who have been in combat rarely see people die. This lack of contact with death today is similar to the lack of real practical understanding most urban folks have about where the food they eat came from, how their cars work, etc.

...my wife tells me that often the dying person becomes very tired. Their breathing becomes weaker, and this may contribute to the person being calmer. This seems to make sense considering that breath control and an easing of the gas does calm down the mind. My Dad was like this. He moved from an extreme fear to a more calm demeanour - but this went along with the gradual deterioration of his heart etc, and the pain relief. This is often true, provided that the patient doesn't experience a sense of suffocation, which is extremely unpleasant and anxiety-provoking. That's one thing medications, mainly opiates and benzodiazepines, can alleviate. Then there is the "Death Rattle" of terminal breathing, which is probably more distressing to those who hear it than to the patient himself. It's due to the accumulation of secretions in the airways. Even that can be "treated" with anticholinergic medications, like atropine. But in general I think your wife is correct: The body has evolved its own physiologic strategies to deal with dying and make it easier when the time comes. Hypoxia leads to lethargy (note the etymology of that word) and somnolence. So does dehydration and starvation...for although they initially produce the unpleasant experiences of thirst and hunger, which are important in driving the organism to sustain life by drinking water and eating food, at some point the body "realizes" that life can no longer be maintained and at that point the lack of water and food produce extreme lethargy. The body switches from a life-sustaining mode driven by thirst and hunger to a death-accepting mode characterized by extreme lethargy and stupor. As your wife says, the dying person becomes very tired...Thus we can say that the body has evolved a kind of "wisdom" in dealing with its own death.

It is important for physicians to understand and appreciate this bodily wisdom. I had a lesson in this when I was a 3rd year medical student rotating through the medical service at the Brooklyn VA 25 years ago. The intern I was working with overnight on the ward had charge of a patient with lung cancer with bony metastases. He was clearly dying and was admitted for comfort care. His pain was being fairly well managed with IV morphine. He was stuporous, and the intern decided to work that up by getting a bunch of lab tests. Well, the labs showed that he had a very high serum calcium level, which we knew was a cause of stupor. The cause of the hypercalcemia was of course his extensive (and painful) bone metastases. So, being bright young doctors-in-training, we decided to "treat" the hypercalcemia (and stupor). It worked! The patient "awoke" from his stupor into
an agitated screaming delirium, which he was still in when the intern proudly presented him to the attending internist at 7AM rounds. Rather than praise our astute application of medical science to "curing" the patient's hypercalcemic stupor, he took us out of the room into the ward corridor and sternly pointed out that we had not done the patient any good, and in fact had caused him unnecessary suffering by "treating" his stupor. We had failed to recognize that in this case the "symptom" we were treating was the body's way of dealing with the terminal cancer. Like the morphine we were giving for pain, the excessive calcium levels were dulling the brain's response to the patient's dying body.

That is a lesson I will never forget.

BTW, I said in a previous post that the Kubler-Ross stages of grief began with anger and ended with acceptance. That was incorrect. the first stage is denial, and the sequence is denial-anger-bargaining-depression-acceptance.

[mal4mac]

BTW, I said in a previous post that the Kubler-Ross stages of grief began with anger and ended with acceptance. That was incorrect. the first stage is denial, and the sequence is denial-anger-bargaining-depression-acceptance.

I suggested that Kubler-Ross didn't provide a good model for a philosophy of death, but that she might provide a good model of how the non-philosopher dies. Digging a little, it seems that there is a lot of evidence for her not even providing that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model#Criticism

The extensive scientific studies of George Bonanno show that the Kübler-Ross stages of grief do not exist. Bonanno's research shows that most people who experience a loss do not grieve, but are resilient. If there is no grief, there can be no stages of grief(!) Bonanno's work has also demonstrated that absence of grief or trauma symptoms is a healthy outcome, rather than something to be feared as has been the thought and practiced until his research.

So most people seem to be "adequate" stoic philosophers when it comes to the process of death. I find this comforting, certainly a lot more comforting than Kübler-Ross' pseudo-science.

Bonanno has shown that some practices common in grief counseling, trauma counseling, and among therapists after potentially traumatic events can be harmful, including asking people to talk about a loss or to cry about a loss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bonanno

[Nick Capozzoli]

...The extensive scientific studies of George Bonanno show that the Kübler-Ross stages of grief do not exist. Bonanno's research shows that most people who experience a loss do not grieve, but are resilient. If there is no grief, there can be no stages of grief(!) Bonanno's work has also demonstrated that absence of grief or trauma symptoms is a healthy outcome, rather than something to be feared as has been the thought and practiced until his research...

So most people seem to be "adequate" stoic philosophers when it comes to the process of death. I find this comforting, certainly a lot more comforting than Kübler-Ross' pseudo-science...

mal4mac,

I am aware of Bonanno's "resilience" hypothesis. I've read a lot about his ideas along with others (including Kubler-Ross's) and for the past 25 years I have also been practicing medicine and caring for folks who actually were seriously ill and dying. I'm not sure what actual experience you have had interacting with folks who were dying. I've certainly found that reading what the "theorists" or "philosophers" of death have to say about grieving and dying is helpful to me in my work as a physician. I'm grateful for their insights, unlike you I have not been able to say that I have found any of the death philosophers to have revealed the "truth." In my opinion neither KR nor Bonanno has revealed the complete truth about how we grieve or approach death. Your comment that The extensive scientific studies of George Bonanno show that the Kübler-Ross stages of grief do not exist is simply not true and flippant. Referring to Kubler-Ross's pseudo-science is likewise flippant. I'm sure that you are sincere and believe that what you are saying is true, and I really don't like being argumentative. But at this point I have to say that your argument seems to me to not be based on real world experience.

[mal4mac]

mal4mac,

... I have also been practicing medicine and caring for folks who actually were seriously ill and dying. I'm not sure what actual experience you have had interacting with folks who were dying...

This is like a mechanic saying to a good driver, and useless mechanic, in trying to belittle his ability to drive, "I've been a practising mechanic for twenty five years, and fixing cars. I'm not sure what actual experience you have had interacting with cars." Given that you've read a few philosophers you might also be a good driver, but using your medical experience to try and say, "I'm an expert on death" smacks of arrogance, and is beside the point. A philosophy of death no more requires a medical degree than a fish requires a bus pass.

[Paulclem]

Their breathing becomes weaker, and this may contribute to the person being calmer.

This is often true, provided that the patient doesn't experience a sense of suffocation, which is extremely unpleasant and anxiety-provoking

Yes - my wife used to nurse old miners who suffered with lung disease - silicosis? - and I remember her telling me about how horrible it was for them struggling for breath.

[mal4mac]

Yes - my wife used to nurse old miners who suffered with lung disease - silicosis? - and I remember her telling me about how horrible it was for them struggling for breath.

Seneca suffered severe asthma attacks. Here's a paraphrase of his main letter about how he dealt with his attacks:
--------------------------
LXXVIII ON THE HEALING POWER OF THE MIND
After severe asthma attacks I felt like ending my life. My studies were my salvation. Philosophy helped me regain strength and attain peace of mind. It enabled me to endure any torture. The most worrying part of disease is the thought of bodily pain. Stop worrying! Suffering is endurable—extreme pain must come to an end. Nerves become numb. Gout and back pain provide intervals of rest, they dull the parts they torture. The first twinges cause distress, the pain ends in numbness. Violent toothache turns to delirium and stupor, a consolation for excessive pain. You cannot help ceasing to feel it if you feel it to excess.
The inexperienced are impatient when their bodies suffer; they have not accustomed themselves to being content in spirit. They are too in love with the body. The wise man divorces soul from body, and dwells with the soul. There is no bitterness in doing without that you have ceased to desire.
Endure the suffering that disease entails, regard it with scorn. Don’t make your troubles heavier by complaining. Pain is slight if opinion adds nothing to it. Think: "It is a trifling matter; keep a stout heart; it will soon cease." In thinking it slight, you make it slight. A man is as wretched as he has convinced himself to be. Don’t complain about past sufferings, they are over and gone. Don’t fear future suffering, it doesn’t concern you yet. Fight against suffering with all your might: if you once give way, you will be vanquished. What difference does it make whether illness is not or I am not? Soon enough one or the other will die; in either case, there is an end of pain. Turn the mind to philosophy and depart from pain.
Coughing-fits that vomit entrails, the highest fever, twisted limbs, the stake, the rack, the red-hot plates, the wound re-opener: many haven’t moaned amid these tortures, nor begged for release. Mock pain! Even paralyzed you can learn, investigate, and meditate. What more is necessary? Maintaining self-control allows disease to be endured. Virtue can exist on a sick bed. Wrestle bravely with disease.
Disease checks bodily pleasures, but does not kill them. It often excites them; the thirstier a man is, the more he enjoys a drink. The pleasures of the mind, which are higher and less uncertain, enable the sick man to scorn all blandishments of the senses. Gruel and water are all that’s needed. Know the limits of good and evil, then life will never weary you, nor death make you afraid. Yield not to adversity; trust not to prosperity; keep before your eyes the full scope of Fortune's power, as if she would do her worst, then that long expected comes more gently.
-----------------

The original has more power, of course, and many other letters dwell on this and similar topics:

http://www.stoics.com/seneca_epistles_book_1.html

[Paulclem]

There are no instructions on how to achieve this state though except an intellectualisation of the idea of separating pain from the mind.

Your attempts to intellectualise the process really don't cut it against the experiences of people like Nick. I really can't understand why you are trying to argue from the standpoint of reading philosophy with someone who clearly has a lot of experience with the dying.

[cafolini]

Live within what's possible. You have no alternative.

[mal4mac]

There are no instructions on how to achieve this state though except an intellectualisation of the idea of separating pain from the mind.


Try reading the rest of the letters.



Your attempts to intellectualise the process really don't cut it against the experiences of people like Nick. I really can't understand why you are trying to argue from the standpoint of reading philosophy with someone who clearly has a lot of experience with the dying.

Seneca's letters were written towards an end of long life as a philosopher/statesmen with much experience of violent and painful death (we're talking Ancient Rome here!) He's also considered as a great philosopher, coming in a long line of greatest philosophers. Experiences of people like Nick don't cut it when compared to figures like this (I might be arguing for the Buddha against Nick in another thread, do you prefer Nick's experiences to the words of the Buddha? Or the Dalai Lama?)

[cafolini]

People die whether they like it or not. What's there to be philosophical about it. Seneca has been highly misinterpreted about this. He's been turned into a voodoo man in the words of stupid philo-sophists.

[Paulclem]

Try reading the rest of the letters.



Seneca's letters were written towards an end of long life as a philosopher/statesmen with much experience of violent and painful death (we're talking Ancient Rome here!) He's also considered as a great philosopher, coming in a long line of greatest philosophers. Experiences of people like Nick don't cut it when compared to figures like this (I might be arguing for the Buddha against Nick in another thread, do you prefer Nick's experiences to the words of the Buddha? Or the Dalai Lama?)

Where's the tradition of practice that demonstrates it beyond an academic appreciation? He may well be a great philosopher - but are hospices running courses on Greek philosophy in order to assist death? No.

The Buddhist's attitude to Nick's experience would be to respect it because he's not only seen people go through the process, can explain it and assist in generating a calm and peaceful attitude, but he would also be in a good position to evaluate what is useful from an external position.

[Paulclem]

Live within what's possible. You have no alternative.

What about dying within what's possible?

[Paulclem]

I think the main problem with what you're saying Mal is that you haven't demonstrated any experience of the death process except in your reading of philosophers. Not only do you have to test out their validity personally, but also be sure that their method works. If it does - fine, but then there's the question of under what conditions? The likelihood is that most people - including beginner practitioners, are going to experience death in the same way that the people Nick sees do. Unless a person has a strong practice, then, depending upon conditions, it may well be better controlled by them.

Most of us will not be at that stage - though hopefully some. Imagine trying to practice as you are trying to catch your breath? If your practie involves breathing exercises, then it is ging to be difficult. Also, the suppression of breathing and awareness described by Nick earlier are not going to be conducive to much practice which requires focus. In the end we will need a practice and also the medical practitioners to help.

[cafolini]

What about dying within what's possible?

Seneca is not proposing any separation of mind and body or body and mind. He's proposing integration of the two. But you are proposing schizophrenia.
If Seneca were an inhabitant of the Orinoco basin, Venezuela, the Shaman will tell him if he will have death soon. Then he wpuld go to his little hut, sit down in a lonely corner and will himself to death. Or is mind controlled body, on the other hand, it should be possible to live forever by willing it. This is ridiculous.
Balthasar Gracian study Seneca very carefully and a lot of his wisdom came from it. There was only one philo-sophistic touch in Seneca. He thought it was possible for society to have a stupid social contract. He put a lot of hope into that, but Balthasar did not bite.
What's possible is what is such.
Harper Lee's book, To Kill a Mockngbird is one of the greatest pieces of literature in the world because it deals with was possible as it evolves, and she place her hopes within that frame. And so did Seneca in his way. No separation of mind and body or body and mind.

[Paulclem]

Seneca is not proposing any separation of mind and body or body and mind. He's proposing integration of the two. But you are proposing schizophrenia.
If Seneca were an inhabitant of the Orinoco basin, Venezuela, the Shaman will tell him if he will have death soon. Then he wpuld go to his little hut, sit down in a lonely corner and will himself to death. Or is mind controlled body, on the other hand, it should be possible to live forever by willing it. This is ridiculous.
Balthasar Gracian study Seneca very carefully and a lot of his wisdom came from it. There was only one philo-sophistic touch in Seneca. He thought it was possible for society to have a stupid social contract. He put a lot of hope into that, but Balthasar did not bite.
What's possible is what is such.
Harper Lee's book, To Kill a Mockngbird is one of the greatest pieces of literature in the world because it deals with was possible as it evolves, and she place her hopes within that frame. And so did Seneca in his way. No separation of mind and body or body and mind.

I have no idea what you mean with this.

[mal4mac]

I think the main problem with what you're saying Mal is that you haven't demonstrated any experience of the death process except in your reading of philosophers...

I've known a few people "about to die" and that very small sample didn't show any stages of grief. So there, I've had some experience. But I certainly don't think that makes me an expert on death whose views can be counted the equal of the greatest minds in antiquity.

Philosophers of the Ancient World, and those who followed them closely, were heavily concerned with the process of dying. CICERO says "that to study philosophy is nothing but to prepare one's self to die," summing up the main concern of the ancients. Of course most modern philosophers are not concerned with that, they are likely to be specialists in areas that are nothing to do with learning how to live or die, and in those cases it would indeed be a waste of time studying those philosophers. But my interest is most definitely in the ancient philosophers, and their followers, who were focused on learning how to live & die. These philosophers, who you disparage so easily (have you read any of them at length?), also, of course, experienced the death of people, just like the rest of us. So they have both expert experience and life experience, and 2000 years of literary & philosophical criticism saying they are "the greatest". Who else would I turn to for advice? Who could be better? I also count the Buddha, J Christ, Shakespeare, and Tolstoy as having input in this area, input that is far more useful than some medic posting on a forum... when I want to know about racing at Le Mans I want to hear from the ace drivers, not any old mechanics.



Not only do you have to test out their validity personally, but also be sure that their method works. If it does - fine, but then there's the question of under what conditions? The likelihood is that most people - including beginner practitioners, are going to experience death in the same way that the people Nick sees do. Unless a person has a strong practice, then, depending upon conditions, it may well be better controlled by them.


No saw bones is going to control my death process... I might get him to supply a few drugs for the pain, or do an operation, just as I might get a mechanic to fix the engine of my car, but I know I'm a better drive than my mechanic, so I'm doing the driving.

Actually I see no reason to believe that a doctor will be any better at managing *any* person's overall death process than the person themselves. Obviously they will be good at the more mechanical aspects... alleviating pain, setting up drips,... and any person would be stupid to ignore their advice in these matters. But I don't think anyone should give overall control of the death process to anyone else... and, perhaps, especially to doctors, they already have enough of a God complex :)

Actually, I'm starting to suspect that any person would be better than the average doctor at managing the mental side of the dying process. That Kubler-Ross stuff seems very dodgy to me, the mental equivalent of blood letting. (Does you wife use it in the NHS or is it a US thing?) The average person might be better dying with common sense rather than Kubler-Ross.



Most of us will not be at that stage - though hopefully some. Imagine trying to practice as you are trying to catch your breath? If your practie involves breathing exercises, then it is ging to be difficult. Also, the suppression of breathing and awareness described by Nick earlier are not going to be conducive to much practice which requires focus. In the end we will need a practice and also the medical practitioners to help.

These are interesting points. I guess you're coming from a Buddhist perspective here? I guess the practice of anapanasati would indeed be difficult during an asthma attack, but accounts of "the progress of insight" assume the advanced practitioner (arahant?) will pay attention to more than the breath, he will pay attention to everything that happens in the moment and "let go" of everything the moment it occurs. Hence the arahant would not suffer at all during the dying process. So I guess the arahant *would* still focus on the breath, however "catchy" it is. He would also focus on adverse mental formations as soon as they begin to arise and dissipate then through insight.

I have great doubts of having the abilities of an arahant when I enter the dying process, and (indeed) even doubt arahants actually exist. So, although appreciating the Buddhist model, I'm not limiting myself to that, I'm also exploring the techniques of Seneca, Epicurus, Socrates,...

[mal4mac]

Seneca is not proposing any separation of mind and body or body and mind. He's proposing integration of the two.


I think this is right. The whole thrust in Seneca is to accept "Fate", and part of that is fully accepting the limitations of the body. Also, he doesn't think of the mind as being some kind of soul that is separate from the body.



Balthasar Gracian study Seneca very carefully and a lot of his wisdom came from it. There was only one philo-sophistic touch in Seneca. He thought it was possible for society to have a stupid social contract. He put a lot of hope into that...


Is that early Seneca? His letters were written near the end of his life, after his final exile, and I think he's given up hope of a social contract there... at least he doesn't mention politics much, and is very much for the philosopher getting out of the political rat-race.

Who is Balthasar Gracian?

[caddy_caddy]

Death is the only truth we know;everything else is a point of view .

[mal4mac]

Where's the tradition of practice that demonstrates it beyond an academic appreciation? He may well be a great philosopher - but are hospices running courses on Greek philosophy in order to assist death? No.


The more enlightened ones might be using techniques like "Cognitive Behavioural Therapy" or "Rational Emotive Therapy" that actually have some basis in science. But where do these techniques come from? The originator of these techniques, Albert Ellis, based them on a reading of the Ancient Stoics, especially Epictetus, but also Seneca and Marcus Aurelius.



The Buddhist's attitude to Nick's experience would be to respect it because he's not only seen people go through the process, can explain it and assist in generating a calm and peaceful attitude, but he would also be in a good position to evaluate what is useful from an external position.

I'm not sure that would be the Buddha's attitude, he didn't respect those "expert" Brahmins much. It certainly wouldn't be the attitude of Socrates. The Socratic dialectic is my preferred "practice" du jour... and that means questioning "so called" experts until you reveal that they are not experts, that they are not wise, unless you *do* reveal they are wise (no evidence of that yet...)

He's seen lots of people die. So what? I've seen lots of cars, but can't make them go if they break.

I've seen no evidence that he can explain the process in a coherent manner, maybe he could recommend a book?

I guess he can hand out drugs, which is no small thing, but, beyond that, I see no evidence that average common sense isn't just as useful as his "expert knowledge".

Why is he in any better position than anyone else?

Doctors & nurses are wonderful, they can transplant hearts, hand out drugs, etc., but we shouldn't put them on a pedestal.

[Nick Capozzoli]

This is like a mechanic saying to a good driver, and useless mechanic, in trying to belittle his ability to drive, "I've been a practising mechanic for twenty five years, and fixing cars. I'm not sure what actual experience you have had interacting with cars." Given that you've read a few philosophers you might also be a good driver, but using your medical experience to try and say, "I'm an expert on death" smacks of arrogance, and is beside the point. A philosophy of death no more requires a medical degree than a fish requires a bus pass.

OK, I think I understand what you are saying about "mechanics" versus "drivers," i.e. that the "driver" is the guy living his life (including the part where he crashes and dies), and the "mechanic" is a physician, who drivers sometimes consult to work on their "cars" (i.e. bodies). That's an interesting way to look at it.

I never claimed to be "an expert on death," whatever that is. I am merely, in your terms, a "saw-bones mechanic" who has tinkered with the cars of those "drivers" who have trusted me with the care of their vehicles, including those whose vehicles were beginning to crap out. If that's how you see it, I agree with your assessment. I guess that you consider a real "expert on death" to be a bona fide philosopher, like the ones you refer to. Would these "experts on death" be more like "automotive engineers" or even "physicists" rather than "greasy mechanics" like me? And I still don't understand why you do not accord folks like Kubler-Ross such expertise. It seems to me that you exclude Kubler-Ross simply because you don't like what she has to say about death and grieving. You obviously don't like what I've had to say on this thread, which is fine by me.

I never claimed to have the best answer to the question of how we should approach death. But as a physician I have had quite a lot of experience with folks who had to deal wit their own deaths, and that includes being present as their "mechanic" when they actually did die. You obviously don't think that this experience means very much. Fine. I'm not Seneca, Buddha, or even Kubler-Ross. I'm just a plodding saw-bones who thought that other LNF folk would be interested in what I had to say.

BTW, this is my last post on this thread.

[mal4mac]

OK, I think I understand what you are saying about "mechanics" versus "drivers," i.e. that the "driver" is the guy living his life (including the part where he crashes and dies), and the "mechanic" is a physician, who drivers sometimes consult to work on their "cars" (i.e. bodies). That's an interesting way to look at it.


Yes that's basically the comparison I was trying to make. Although I was also trying to make the point that Socrates and Seneca might then be viewed as world class racing drivers. I'm not sure viewing them as "automotive engineer" or "physicist" works, for me, as they would then just be a better class of mechanic. I'm looking at the car as being the body, and Socrates is certainly not about designing a better body. His procedure is to engage in dialectic, and to apply some coherent, well founded, beliefs to the human situation.



I guess that you consider a real "expert on death" to be a bona fide philosopher, like the ones you refer to.

As far as I can see, I might be entirely wrong of course.


And I still don't understand why you do not accord folks like Kubler-Ross such expertise. It seems to me that you exclude Kubler-Ross simply because you don't like what she has to say about death and grieving.

The "stages of grief" model clashes with the models that make sense to me. Read Socrates Apology (i.e., Plato's dialogue of that name) and you will see no evidence of Socrates going through any "stages of grief", unless you count the one stage of "acceptance" (!) The same goes for Seneca, Epicurus, and other philosophers I've encountered in my reading.

I think Kubler Ross might be pernicious, in that patients might be expected to go through grief, which might bring it on as a self fulfilling prophecy. One example of this yesterday - I was listening to "the ethics committee" on UK radio 4 and a doctor was about to tell a young patient that he was about to die, what she said was, "Now, what I'll tell you will make you cry..." This seems to be inviting emotional incontinence and mental suffering. Why should she assume he will cry? She might expect it, but why should she encourage it? This patient had been ill for a long time, why hadn't he encountered Socratic/Senecan therapy (maybe a strong version version of CBT/RET?). Then he might become immune to such grief.

Note, I wasn't trying to imply that you were, for sure, *just* a good mechanic. You may be both a good mechanic and a world class driver. I'm sure you're at least a reasonable driver. I do tend to "philosophize with a hammer" a bit too much, sorry if I came over as a bit rude. Why not stay in the thread and I'll try to be more polite?

Question: how can you combine the models of Kubler Ross and Bonanno in a medical practice? They seem very different at first sight.

[Paulclem]

The more enlightened ones might be using techniques like "Cognitive Behavioural Therapy" or "Rational Emotive Therapy" that actually have some basis in science. But where do these techniques come from? The originator of these techniques, Albert Ellis, based them on a reading of the Ancient Stoics, especially Epictetus, but also Seneca and Marcus Aurelius

Inspiration comes from somewhere, but the ancients did not practice cognitive behavioural therapy. I find this a very tenuous link.

I presume this is the bit you paraphrasing.

Epictetus wrote in The Enchiridion, "Men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them." The modern psychotherapist most influential to the development of RET was Alfred Adler (who developed Individual Psychology). Adler, a neo-Freudian, stated, "I am convinced that a person's behavior springs from his ideas."

http://nacbt.org/historyofcbt.htm

I'm not sure that would be the Buddha's attitude, he didn't respect those "expert" Brahmins much.

No, but doctors are not the top of a caste system which discriminates against other castes in their favour. The analogy is invalid, and I think the Buddha would respect those engaged in healing. Like Nick, I think your saw bones reference unfair. You'll be needing one when you are older, so lets hope you get a healer type.

He's seen lots of people die. So what? I've seen lots of cars, but can't make them go if they break.

Invalid. He didn't say he could heal dying people, and his story illustrated that the docs were not there to do that when the person is dying.

I guess he can hand out drugs, which is no small thing, but, beyond that, I see no evidence that average common sense isn't just as useful as his "expert knowledge".

You really have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm not surprised he's decided not to bother discussing it. My wife's experience - and Nick's - have given them an insight into the process, stages, problems, relief, grief, acceptance etc etc that people go through. Anyone with common sense will recognise that as useful in helping others, and also a good insight into their own death if they get the chance to reflect on it when their time comes. As Nick, and my wife, said every person is different, and the range of experience of who have died will be very useful. Like I said before, I'm surprised by your attitude.

[mal4mac]

Inspiration comes from somewhere, but the ancients did not practice cognitive behavioural therapy. I find this a very tenuous link.

I presume this is the bit you paraphrasing.

Epictetus wrote in The Enchiridion, "Men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them." The modern psychotherapist most influential to the development of RET was Alfred Adler (who developed Individual Psychology). Adler, a neo-Freudian, stated, "I am convinced that a person's behavior springs from his ideas."


I didn't say the ancients practiced CBT/RET. As this is a philosophy forum please limit your use of rhetoric :)

I wasn't paraphrasing a text, my summary came from memory.

Actually that quote from the Enchiridion looks, to me, like pure RET/CBT so I don't see how you can see the link as tenuous. I've read all of Epictetus and a lot about RET/CBT. I'll need a lot of convincing that the link is tenuous. Would you unpack why you think the link is tenuous?




I'm not sure that would be the Buddha's attitude, he didn't respect those "expert" Brahmins much.

No, but doctors are not the top of a caste system which discriminates against other castes in their favour. The analogy is invalid, and I think the Buddha would respect those engaged in healing. Like Nick, I think your saw bones reference unfair. You'll be needing one when you are older, so lets hope you get a healer type.


Are you sure? My doctor is of Hindu origin, maybe I'll ask him, then again, maybe not :). But my point is well made, I think, a doctor could be a strict Hindu Brahmin, so wouldn't the Buddha argue strongly against him on fundamental philosophical matters, I don't think he would hold back just because he might get a bit of pain relief somewhere down the line.



My wife's experience - and Nick's - have given them an insight into the process, stages, problems, relief, grief, acceptance etc etc that people go through. Anyone with common sense will recognise that as useful in helping others, and also a good insight into their own death if they get the chance to reflect on it when their time comes. As Nick, and my wife, said every person is different, and the range of experience of who have died will be very useful. Like I said before, I'm surprised by your attitude.

We all have experience of dying, why is Nick's more pertinent than anyone else's? In fact, he praises the ancient philosophers and diminishes his own claim to expertise, quote, "I'm not Seneca, Buddha... I'm just a plodding saw-bones." Why then would you then think his experience is as much worth listening to as Socrates or the Buddha? If you ask you wife to fix the roof and she says "I'm not Fred the roofer, I'm just a plodding nurse" who would you get to fix the roof? Fred the Roofer, surely, it's just common sense!

Given the choice, would you talk to the acknowledged expert on the Tibetan Book of the Dead, or the bloke next door, to try and gain more insight into dying?

Every person is different, but they aren't different in all ways. We all have two eyes a nose.

When it comes to the best approach to dying, for me, and perhaps many people, I see it as being some combination of the approach taken by Socrates, Seneca, and other ancients.

I'm surprised you're buying in to the "stages, problems, relief, grief" model. Read the Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha and you don't see him going through these stages (it's rather ridiculous to consider that he would!)

I don't want to know how ordinary people die, I want to know how experts on dying have died. These experts, like the Buddha, Seneca, Socrates are very rare. Nick and your wife have probably never encountered anyone like them. You do mention your wife encountering a "very calm" woman, so it may be she is someone who has taken the ideas of the philosophers on board, somehow. But as your wife doesn't have time to investigate the woman's philosophy/background/ upbringing we will never know, so I'm afraid your wife's account is not that much use to me. As a passing anecdote it's quite nice, it's good to know there are people calm in the face of death. But does your wife provide a systematic account of dealing with dying that can match that of the Buddha or Socrates?

[russellb]

There is the wisdom of how to die which really is a way of talking about how to live, whether one is talking about the ancients or contemporary CBT. Of death itself, we may witness it in others but in a way no one can be an expert, if we follow wittgenstein and say that "death is not an event in life"

[mal4mac]

There is the wisdom of how to die which really is a way of talking about how to live, whether one is talking about the ancients or contemporary CBT. Of death itself, we may witness it in others but in a way no one can be an expert, if we follow wittgenstein and say that "death is not an event in life"

But there is a dying process that occurs in life, and there needs to be a philosophy of the dying process that occurs within life.

There's also an anticipation of death that occurs in life. We need a philosophy of death that can deal with our, perhaps scary, anticipation of the "nothing" that comes after us.

Does Wittgenstein say anything more about death? It's a good quote, but it's "borrowed" from Epicurus, who goes on to suggest that the nothing that comes after us cannot bother us because we will not be there to experience it, and other useful things for coping with death.

Also it's not possible to say, conclusively, that "death is not an event in life", is it? There *might* be life after death. Being convinced that the mind(soul) is an aspect/epiphenomenon of the brain I don't think there is, so don't live my life in any real hope that there is, but I might be wrong.

[russellb]

i think what i wanted to say is that no one can talk experientially about death and so in this sense no one is expert. What wittgenstein said may be modified to explicitly include the possibility of immortal being by saying, "...life in this world." And we who live in this world, in a very real sense cannot talk 'knowingly' about death.

Perhaps this is a big problem in terms of wisdom that allows us to live our lives in the context of death. "Where death is i am not, where i am death is not," so goes the ancient dictum. This is not established by experience. Are we to say that death is the cessation of being, 'life after death' is therefore illogical, and counsel consolation on this basis. Christians may have a very real vision of hell. I won't say this is irrational and even if it were,

[russellb]

can we we say that it would be correctable in all cases? this would be to assume that all people can live their lives according to some standard of rationality

[mal4mac]

i think what i wanted to say is that no one can talk experientially about death and so in this sense no one is expert... "Where death is i am not, where i am death is not," so goes the ancient dictum. This is not established by experience.

What about Alzheimer's disease? That involves a slow extinction of the experience of memory, amongst other things. Does the Alzheimer patient, whose identity has been wiped out, suddenly regain it in Christian hell through some kind of spiritual reconstruction of the pre-Alzheimer brain? Maybe. But I can't believe it.

We don't experience tomorrow, but we all believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow. So we can have beliefs we are totally convinced about without having "in your face" experience.

Given what we know about the close ties between mind & brain & identity then my belief in extinction of mind & identity at brain death is strong, so I hold that belief.

In any case, it's stupid to worry about all the bad things that people have suggested might happen after death. It's like someone worrying about walking to work tomorrow, thinking they might be hit by a car, mauled by a big dog, or struck by lightening.

[Paulclem]

I didn't say the ancients practiced CBT/RET. As this is a philosophy forum please limit your use of rhetoric :)

I wasn't paraphrasing a text, my summary came from memory.

Actually that quote from the Enchiridion looks, to me, like pure RET/CBT so I don't see how you can see the link as tenuous. I've read all of Epictetus and a lot about RET/CBT. I'll need a lot of convincing that the link is tenuous. Would you unpack why you think the link is tenuous?



Are you sure? My doctor is of Hindu origin, maybe I'll ask him, then again, maybe not :). But my point is well made, I think, a doctor could be a strict Hindu Brahmin, so wouldn't the Buddha argue strongly against him on fundamental philosophical matters, I don't think he would hold back just because he might get a bit of pain relief somewhere down the line.



We all have experience of dying, why is Nick's more pertinent than anyone else's? In fact, he praises the ancient philosophers and diminishes his own claim to expertise, quote, "I'm not Seneca, Buddha... I'm just a plodding saw-bones." Why then would you then think his experience is as much worth listening to as Socrates or the Buddha? If you ask you wife to fix the roof and she says "I'm not Fred the roofer, I'm just a plodding nurse" who would you get to fix the roof? Fred the Roofer, surely, it's just common sense!

Given the choice, would you talk to the acknowledged expert on the Tibetan Book of the Dead, or the bloke next door, to try and gain more insight into dying?

Every person is different, but they aren't different in all ways. We all have two eyes a nose.

When it comes to the best approach to dying, for me, and perhaps many people, I see it as being some combination of the approach taken by Socrates, Seneca, and other ancients.

I'm surprised you're buying in to the "stages, problems, relief, grief" model. Read the Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha and you don't see him going through these stages (it's rather ridiculous to consider that he would!)

I don't want to know how ordinary people die, I want to know how experts on dying have died. These experts, like the Buddha, Seneca, Socrates are very rare. Nick and your wife have probably never encountered anyone like them. You do mention your wife encountering a "very calm" woman, so it may be she is someone who has taken the ideas of the philosophers on board, somehow. But as your wife doesn't have time to investigate the woman's philosophy/background/ upbringing we will never know, so I'm afraid your wife's account is not that much use to me. As a passing anecdote it's quite nice, it's good to know there are people calm in the face of death. But does your wife provide a systematic account of dealing with dying that can match that of the Buddha or Socrates?

Would you unpack why you think the link is tenuous?

You haven't convinced me that it isn't. I don't claim to know much of either, but there's only your say so.

Are you sure? My doctor is of Hindu origin, maybe I'll ask him, then again, maybe not :). But my point is well made, I think, a doctor could be a strict Hindu Brahmin, so wouldn't the Buddha argue strongly against him on fundamental philosophical matters, I don't think he would hold back just because he might get a bit of pain relief somewhere down the line.

Absolutely positive. A doctor could be a strict Hindu Brahmin, but could just as well not be. There were healers in the past, but the Buddha's issues with Brahmins were based upon their attitude and adherence to the caste system - not healing. The fact of him being or not being a doctor is neither here nor there. From the practical medical side - what's there for The Buddha to argue with?

We all have experience of dying, why is Nick's more pertinent than anyone else's? In fact, he praises the ancient philosophers and diminishes his own claim to expertise, quote, "I'm not Seneca, Buddha... I'm just a plodding saw-bones." Why then would you then think his experience is as much worth listening to as Socrates or the Buddha? If you ask you wife to fix the roof and she says "I'm not Fred the roofer, I'm just a plodding nurse" who would you get to fix the roof? Fred the Roofer, surely, it's just common sense!

Nick's advice is worth listening to because of his external experience of death, and the moral and medical support he can give. The term saw bones is carefully chosen to disregard the moral and possibly spiritual support a doctor might give. I think his own references to saw bones is merely his humility. and it is not valid to co-opt it into your argument. Roofers and mechanics are neither good analogies because of the moral and spiritual aspects to a person. I would listen to The Buddha because he developed methods with which to deal with death. I would listen to Nick because of his experience and all the medical support he could give. I wouldn't be rushing out to read Seneca.

I'm surprised you're buying in to the "stages, problems, relief, grief" model. Read the Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha and you don't see him going through these stages (it's rather ridiculous to consider that he would!)

I would defer to someone who has more experience than I. If they say it is useful, or describes aspects of the process, then I would respect that. That doesn't mean I would discount other advice or my own developing experience.

I don't want to know how ordinary people die, I want to know how experts on dying have died. These experts, like the Buddha, Seneca, Socrates are very rare. Nick and your wife have probably never encountered anyone like them. You do mention your wife encountering a "very calm" woman, so it may be she is someone who has taken the ideas of the philosophers on board, somehow. But as your wife doesn't have time to investigate the woman's philosophy/background/ upbringing we will never know, so I'm afraid your wife's account is not that much use to me. As a passing anecdote it's quite nice, it's good to know there are people calm in the face of death. But does your wife provide a systematic account of dealing with dying that can match that of the Buddha or Socrates

I think her comment that she was a calm person before the death process began indicates something important - namely that any preparation has to be done before. You're right to aim for the best death possible, but things don't always turn out like that. I'm sure there are many elderly people who would do things better if they were not debilitated by their various conditions. Insight into the possibilities, and some kind of awareness that we may not be having a clean, clear death is important.

Something I've not mentioned before is that Karma is likely - from the Buddhist's perspective - to develop the person's death conditions. I know you are sceptical of this, but one thing I was reading recently is that karma develops a person - angry - angrier - calm and calming - calm person, perhaps leading to a calmer death and the conditions that foster that.

[Ecurb]

I know nothing about Kubler-Ross, except what I read here (and what I just looked up on Wiki). However (since this is a literary board), Ivan Ilyitch seems to have gone through some of the stages described (in this thread) as being associated with Kubler-Ross, and probably did so before Kubler -Ross was born. Perhaps, however, arguments based on fictional characters are spurious.

[russellb]

What about Alzheimer's disease? That involves a slow extinction of the experience of memory, amongst other things. Does the Alzheimer patient, whose identity has been wiped out, suddenly regain it in Christian hell through some kind of spiritual reconstruction of the pre-Alzheimer brain? Maybe. But I can't believe it.

We don't experience tomorrow, but we all believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow. So we can have beliefs we are totally convinced about without having "in your face" experience.

Given what we know about the close ties between mind & brain & identity then my belief in extinction of mind & identity at brain death is strong, so I hold that belief.

In any case, it's stupid to worry about all the bad things that people have suggested might happen after death. It's like someone worrying about walking to work tomorrow, thinking they might be hit by a car, mauled by a big dog, or struck by lightening.

we believe the sun will rise because of past experience, which is the basis of many of our beliefs....it seems pretty obvious we can't talk about death from experience. It may be silly to worry over death but we are not machines who can simply be programmed not to (i don't think cbt is that good) There is loads of compelling evidence to say that our mental life is bound up with our bodies (and i say 'bound up' not 'identical with') But you have said yourself you are uncertain about 'life after death' and maybe you've hit on something with 'spiritual reconstruction'...

[mal4mac]

we believe the sun will rise because of past experience, which is the basis of many of our beliefs....it seems pretty obvious we can't talk about death from experience.

But if death means brain death isn't partial brain death at least a partial experience of death? I think this observation is useful for countering the Christian myth of survival after death. Would a loving God provide a never ending after life to an Alzheimer patient? Also, isn't sleep a bit like death? We lose conscious awareness, so we have some idea of what that is like, or at least conscious awareness of coming back from it! Also some people have come back from clinical death, so we have their experiences to draw on.



It may be silly to worry over death but we are not machines who can simply be programmed not to (i don't think cbt is that good)

I agree it's not a simple programming task, but you can habituate people to have less fear of death. That's partly what basic training for troops is about, getting them habituated to running onto the battlefield through reducing their fear of death. Again, the UK doesn't do a very good job of this. Maybe the techniques of Ancient Sparta should be looked at.

Have you looked at the evidence for CBT? I think it's been badly implemented in the UK, but the evidence for its usefulness, in many cases, is fairly sound. (It's nowhere near as effective as Newtonian mechanics is for calculating the path of rocket ships of course! But, still, it seems to have helped a lot of people.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy#Evaluation_of_effecti veness



There is loads of compelling evidence to say that our mental life is bound up with our bodies (and i say 'bound up' not 'identical with') But you have said yourself you are uncertain about 'life after death' and maybe you've hit on something with 'spiritual reconstruction'...

I'm a skeptic, I think, so I'm uncertain about everything. But, really, I think 'spiritual reconstruction' is a daft idea, like the idea of the tooth fairy. An amusing fancy maybe, but no more. I agree with your 'bound up' not 'identical with', but I think it is a tight, inseparable binding.

[russellb]

But if death means brain death isn't partial brain death at least a partial experience of death? I think this observation is useful for countering the Christian myth of survival after death. Would a loving God provide a never ending after life to an Alzheimer patient? Also, isn't sleep a bit like death? We lose conscious awareness, so we have some idea of what that is like, or at least conscious awareness of coming back from it! Also some people have come back from clinical death, so we have their experiences to draw on.

going to sleep may be the perfect analogy with death, assuming death to be the cessation of being, cos it is not an event in consciousness. if this is the case no one could ever experientially talk of death. Near death experience, i would grant you, is experience to draw on, although as a sceptic i guess you might emphasize the word 'near' and say that any reported experience assumes life (before death). And you can believe in 'life after death' and dismiss 'near death experience' and what it seems to tell us


I agree it's not a simple programming task, but you can habituate people to have less fear of death. That's partly what basic training for troops is about, getting them habituated to running onto the battlefield through reducing their fear of death. Again, the UK doesn't do a very good job of this. Maybe the techniques of Ancient Sparta should be looked at.

Have you looked at the evidence for CBT? I think it's been badly implemented in the UK, but the evidence for its usefulness, in many cases, is fairly sound. (It's nowhere near as effective as Newtonian mechanics is for calculating the path of rocket ships of course! But, still, it seems to have helped a lot of people.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy#Evaluation_of_effecti veness

I should say i have been part of the evidence as to the assessment of the efficacy of cbt and i was in the therapy group with a therapist who lost the plot a bit at one point and said she doubted her competence to practice the therapy. Maybe i should have told her it was a **** therapy or for me anyway. These things don't and can't work for everyone. I have also undergone cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) and that didn't provide any kind of good result either.

I'm a skeptic, I think, so I'm uncertain about everything. But, really, I think 'spiritual reconstruction' is a daft idea, like the idea of the tooth fairy. An amusing fancy maybe, but no more. I agree with your 'bound up' not 'identical with', but I think it is a tight, inseparable binding.

I don't think the idea that we are 'reconstructed' is so daft. I would hope that God (in fact we don't need to believe in god necessarily to believe in 'life after death') would be benevolent enough to reconstruct someone not in an advanced condition of dementia and place them in a fiery furnace as you were speaking of above. This may however be an anxiety for some that the 'rationalist' approaches of cognitive therapies cannot ally.

[russellb]

sorry don't know how to use net and have accidentally stuck things i ve said in with quoting what you wrote

[mal4mac]

I don't think the idea that we are 'reconstructed' is so daft.

Maybe 'daft' was a bit strong. It's quite a nice fantasy story, and Philip Jose Farmer has written it: "To your scattered Bodies Go", after John Donne:

At the round earth's imagin'd corners, blow
Your trumpets, angels, and arise, arise
From death, you numberless infinities
Of souls, and to your scattered bodies go.

But being sceptical, I'd need to see a convincing resurrection before I believe in life after death, or a convincing rebirth, or a convincing "spirit form", or whatever fantasy is the actuality, if any. Meanwhile I'll continue to "go by appearances", go by my "gut feeling", and be very happy in holding that I don't live after death.

[russellb]

if 500 hundred witnesses had seen a man walk about who had been known to have been executed that would be pretty convincing. The only problem with this account in the bible is that we can't be sure if there really were 500 people who saw a man walk round, apparently resurrected. This seems to relate to ideas as to whether we should believe in miracles. I think Hume said something, didn't he, to the effect that the amount of evidence required to be justified in believing in a miracle, would basically mean it reflected a law of nature and then, paradoxically, it could not be regarded as miraculous. As an afterthought they do say 'seeing is believing' perhaps a sceptic is just a person who hasn't been mugged by a dead person, or something like that...